Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case Number: 23STCV23719, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV23719, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV23719 Hearing Date: February 20, 2025 Dept: 76

The following tentative ruling is issued pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:41 PM on February 19, 2025.

Notice of intent to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1). The Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.

As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on February 19, 2025.

Notice to Department 76 should be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org, with opposing parties copied on the email. The high volume of telephone calls to Department 76 may delay the Court’s receipt of notice, so telephonic notice to 213-830-0776 should be reserved for situations where parties are unable to give notice by email.

Per Rule of Court 3.1308, the Court may not entertain oral argument if notice of intention to appear is not given.

Plaintiff Justina Jimenez’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed served as of the date of this order.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add a cause of action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act—15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, No. S274625, 2024 WL 4631069 (Cal. Oct. 31, 2024) holding that a used vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty is not a new motor vehicle under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act unless a warranty was issued with the sale.

Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a) & (b) states:

(a) Contents of motion A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and

(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.

(b) Supporting declaration A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:

(1) The effect of the amendment;

(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

(Cal. Rules of Court, 3.1324(a) & (b).)

The motion sets forth the proposed addition to be a fifth cause of action for violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312). Although the Declaration of Armig Khodanian does not strictly comply with Rule 3.1324(b), the Court infers that Plaintiff did not assert the Magnuson-Moss claim prior to the Rodriguez decision because the Song-Beverly Act affords consumers greater protection with regard to defective vehicles than Magnuson-Moss.

“Leave to amend is in general required to be liberally granted (citation omitted), provided there is no statute of limitations concern. Leave to amend may be denied if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Citation omitted.)” (Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402.) Where an additional theory of liability is proposed against an existing defendant, this is not prejudice which would justify the denial of leave to amend. (See Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. See also Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761: “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments ‘relate to the same general set of facts.’ [Citation.]” (Citation omitted.))

Because Plaintiff is not adding any new facts, there does not appear to be a significant expansion of the case in advance of trial.

Here, Defendant has not demonstrated prejudice, and only argues that Plaintiff’s counsel made a tactical blunder in not asserting a Magnuson-Moss claim earlier. However, given that Rodriguez definitively cuts off a remedy for a class of used vehicle purchasers, the Court finds that the liberal policy of leave to amend should be followed, especially where the underlying facts to be tried remain unchanged.

The motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed served as of the date of this order.